North Korea

Why Tuesday?

Thats the 15th, the day NK said they would strike Guam.

Really? Because I don't recall them having any particular date in mind. Do you have a link?

Or perhaps we get another missile test on that day demonstrating North Korea's capability to hit Guam.

Hm. Most articles are saying just mid August. Must have been one of the CNN commentators that said the 15th.

Then again, the 15th is also a holiday in NK, so maybe thats where the date came from.

Thought so. Thanks anyways.

That's what I've thought it was, sort of. All of the reports I've been hearing have been saying NK isn't actually going to hit Guam itself, just the waters near Guam, and that while they'd be firing ballistic missiles, there's no telling whether said missiles may or may not be nuclear. I think if they weren't planning on actually hitting Guam, then just plain old ballistics would probably be the safer bet here.

edited 12th Aug '17 9:34:31 AM by kkhohoho

Chances are still rather good we won't get to see anything of serious note. Wouldn't be the first threat and likely won't be the last.

I've been thinking about the practical effects of the discovery of North possessing the technology to fit nuclear weapons in long-range missiles.

Just because you're in range of the missiles doesn't necessarily mean you'll actually get attacked. And if North doesn't attack, the status quo, as messy as it is, would continue in some form. Places that were already within reach of North's missiles, like Seoul and Tokyo, were irritated at North Korean provocations, but they persevered and lives went on.

If on the other hand North does attack territories of other countries, like South Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, etc., then that's war, and those other countries will fight back. And having nuclear weapons will not stop them from fighting back when a war has already begun. A war that North Korea starts would kill its own deterrence.

However, failing to stop and denuclearize North Korea could damage the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its goals, because it would be an example of a state being in defiance until the other countries concede, getting what you want by force.

edited 13th Aug '17 1:13:44 AM by Trivialis

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/guam-residents-pray-peace-north-korea-deadline-looms-072744397.html

Got this just now.

New Tork Times today has an article about how North Korea's recent missle success could be traced back to a Ukrainian plant that had ties to Russia's own program

@Trivialis: Nuclear proliferation is the reason North Korean nuclear weapons are concerning more than conerns about a first strike being initiated by the DPRK, though the issue of a false positives from whatever passes for an early warning system in North Korea resulting in them retaliating against a non-existent attack is also a serious concern.

edited 14th Aug '17 11:06:43 AM by CaptainCapsase

Yeah, imagine the 1995 Norwegian Rocket Incident, but with Kim and co at the helm instead of Yeltsin.

Brrrr....

Theoritical talk: What would legally giving South Korea nukes do, both in terms of deterrence and getting us.them in trouble with other countries? Would it force things back into stalemate a la India and Pakistan?

China obviously wouldn't like it but if Seoul was made to promise they would only be used defensively...?

Probably nothing in a strategic sense. The situation between the North and the South hasn't changed at all strategically.

Technically S Korea has nukes via the Mutual Defense Treaty with the US.

Given the current administration I'm unsure how much force those agreements will have if push comes to shove.

I dont know, it is probably more than likely the opposite with the actual saber rattling coming from Trump instead of panic coming from S Korea like it was during the Obama administration.... its kinda weird.

It would get both South Korea and the US expelled from the non-proliferation treaty for perhaps the most blatant breach ever carried out, legally it would put the US and South Kore in an equal of worse position to that of North Korea, sanctions could easily be justified.

Now legally the US is more than welcome to station its own nukes in South Korea, South Korea could likewise declare that due to the iminant threat from North Korea it intends to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, both are viable legal option, but just strait up ignoring the treaty would be a massive breach of protocol and would show that both the US and South Korea have no real respect for international law or treaties that they sign.

edited 14th Aug '17 1:21:59 PM by Silasw

If they were able to negotiate and get other countries to agree that the case of North Korea warranted waiving/renegotiating the rules of the treaty in order to protect South Korea, then what?

edited 14th Aug '17 1:30:29 PM by Elle

well everyone knows North and South Korea hate eachother

I assume that South Korea would get nuclear weapons, and that's one more power to retaliate if North Korea does something. I don't think it will really change much, even if it was entirely legal to give nuclear weapons to South Korea.

South Korea wouldn't fire unless attacked first, and North Korea already has plenty of guns turned on it. I don't think it makes much difference.

So it's apparently already Tuesday in NK, and Kim has made his move. As for what said move is, it honestly shouldn't surprise anyone.

Was anyone expecting anything less?

Anything less? No. What we were worried about was something more.

X5 You wouldn't need to change the treaty, it already has a mechanism within it for withdrawing, to quote the other wiki "Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice."

So South Korea gives three months notice and then after withdrawing begins its own development of nuclear weapons, the US legally couldn't help with that due to still being a treaty member, but backroom stuff could probably be gotten away with.

Now amending the treaty to make South Korea the world's 6th legal nuclear weapon state is theoretically possible, but you'd need the agreement of all 190 signature states, so it's highly unlikely.

It would be easier to just station US nukes there.

edited 15th Aug '17 1:55:09 AM by Silasw

Can't wait to hear from the Roman Catholic community in Guam say that their prayers reached him.